Disinformation about migration

Disinformation via technology

While the advent of the Internet promised a new frontier for freedom of expression and access to information, the online world is dominated by a small group of companies. These have grown far beyond their original focus – online shopping, web search, social networking – to become vast infrastructures upon which entire sectors of social and economic life are dependent. The business model is relatively simple: they offer users free access to content and services, while accumulating data that generate revenue through personalized advertising and other data-based services.

Disinformation in society and politics

In many countries, high-profile political actors have normalized disinformation about migration and rely on sympathetic media to do so. Often, these arguments centre on economics. Public anxieties about economic implications and social change are channelled against migrants, even though unemployment rates and wage deflation are the result of State economic policies and not migration. In South Africa, for example, studies consistently find that migration is a net economic benefit for the country, but migrants are scapegoated as a cause of high unemployment. In the United States, Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign generated fears about Mexicans “swarming” over the southern border and promised to “build a wall” to protect the integrity of the State. Although Trump’s rhetoric was largely directed at Mexicans, hyperpartisan media outlets extended the fearmongering to include Muslims. In the United Kingdom, pro-Brexit rhetoric focused heavily on migration from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Legal European Union migration was frequently confused with asylum-seeking as the Vote Leave campaign stoked up fears of an imminent arrival of millions of Turks and the right-wing press amplified these views.

Media and disinformation about migration

Bad actors is a generic term for those who intentionally create and propagate disinformation. They may be States, corporations, social movements or individuals, and their motivations span a spectrum of political, ideological and financial interests. They also vary considerably in terms of the audiences they target and the levels of coordination involved. Amplifiers are the media pundits, politicians, celebrities and online influencers who help popularize disinformation — whether intentionally or not — by spreading it among their large networks. Finally, hyperpartisan media are ideological outlets that frequently amplify disinformation. In the United States of America, for example, hyperpartisan media regularly give credence to disinformation stories and thereby push disinformation agendas on topics from economics to international relations. Disinformation campaigns against migrants are heavily aligned to right-wing political and media actors, including the resurgence of far-right, nationalist and xenophobic ideologies.

To date, much of the popular discussion on disinformation has focused on content. However, focusing on content alone can obscure the operation of coordinated disinformation campaigns whereby a network of bad actors cooperates to manipulate public opinion.

Journalists are frequently criticized for providing negative coverage of migration. In some outlets, the use of fear as a framing device results in a perpetual flow of “bad news” about migrant crime, public unrest and violence. As such, news media provide bad actors with stories that can be repurposed and decontextualized to promote their own agenda. During the so-called refugee crisis of 2015—2016, European news media played a central role in framing the arriving refugees and migrants as a crisis for Europe, while affording little attention to migrants and their experience. This narrative also prevails in North Africa, where media coverage often accentuates discrimination and racism. Stereotyped and negative images of migrants perpetuate a discourse of migration as an “invasion” or a “burden”, which exacerbates prejudice and hostile attitudes. These views have been linked to the rise in anti-immigrant political parties and the intensification of anti-immigrant rhetoric in politics.

Migrants, human security, and disinformation

Disruption and disinformation are increasingly deployed as part of tactical pursuits of power around the world, with negative impacts on public, political and social media discourse on migration, displacement and migrants (including refugees), and ultimately on societal values and democratic systems. A recent report on human security by the United Nations highlights that a growing paradox has emerged in which people around the world have been, on average, living healthier, wealthier and better lives for longer than ever, but also have been feeling less secure.

The increase in misinformation and disinformation on migration and migrants has fuelled discriminatory sentiment and xenophobia, resulting in online hate speech and also physical violence towards ethnic minorities in some communities. Migrants may face discrimination in destination countries in a wide variety of settings, including in workplaces, schools and universities, health-care environments and social settings. Discrimination acts impair the mental and physical health of migrants, and in some cases can have severe impacts. Effective antidiscrimination policies are an important preventative measure to help support human security and social cohesion in societies, including migrant populations.

Building societal resilience to disinformation

There is growing evidence that succinct and repeated corrections can reduce misperceptions. A study of misperceptions about migration found that providing correct information reduced negative attitudes towards migrants, while also increasing factual knowledge. However, the content and format of a correction matter. Content matters, because simply stating that information is wrong may do little to dislodge misperceptions. In contrast, providing an explanation is more effective, because it helps the audience to update their knowledge. Format matters, because audiences might only skim the content. If the correction fails to prioritize correct information or puts undue emphasis on false claims, then the important facts may be lost. To avoid these scenarios, best practice recommends a “truth sandwich” approach, whereby the correction begins with correct information before explaining the nature of the disinformation and why it is incorrect. In the final step, the correct information is reinforced again.